Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

80% of Daily YouTube Videos Now In WebM

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the webm-good dept.

Google 163

An anonymous reader writes "OSNews has an update on the WebM project from a presentation given by Google's John Luther and Matt Frost at the Streaming Media West conference. OSNews writes, 'Earlier this year, Google finally did what many of us hoped it would do: release the VP8 codec as open source. It became part of the WebM project, which combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container. The product manager for the WebM project, John Luther, gave an update on the status of the project (PDF) — and it's doing great.'"

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WebM versus H.264 (0, Troll)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215078)

It's all good and all, but at most WebM will now be an alternative for the big guy H.264 which is already widely supported by computers, mobile phones, consoles, tv's... and is the superior format. WebM provides too little too late.

Personally I think making so many different formats will create the same hell that was around the year 2000 with WMV, RealPlayer and so on. We've finally established a single and simple way to embed video in to websites and that is flash with H.264. It has been working great.

For an analogy.. like in Buddhism, maybe we should all tolerate each other. Buddhism has four genders - man, woman, ladyboy and hermafrodites. Just the same way we can have H.264, WebM, Theora and hell, WMV. Lets let everyone be like they are, use them what they want and love each other. Remember karmas law - say something bad about other formats and it will come back to you in the future. Lets support each other and improve technology together.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (4, Insightful)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215104)

flash with H.264 has not been working great. It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer, and it don't work on mobile phones.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Insightful)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215150)

Yes it does for mobile devices that support Flash Player 10.1 like them Android 2.2 ones and the Blackberry Tab.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215308)

For variable definitions of "works". Flash is not a great performer on low power hardware, especially on the battery.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Interesting)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216988)

For variable definitions of "works". Flash is not a great performer on low power hardware, especially on the battery.

While it doesn't change the existing speed/stability/security/battery-munching problems of most of the Flash content out there, the performance situation should be somewhat better for Flash content that uses h.264 on hardware with h.264 acceleration. (upgrade to current software, if possible, probably required)

The people that say Flash works fine and those that say it's awful can both be right. It's not consistent.
So that definition of "works" needs qualifiers for old versus h.264 Flash content, and whether certain playback platform features are present.

The way I see it, if one has to replace old Flash content with h.264 or another modern codec to get acceleration speed/power improvements, it might as well not be wrapped in a Flash container.

On VP8:
The question I have is can existing hardware that supports h.264 acceleration do the same for WebM VP8 video, and if not, can that functionality be added fairly easily to future devices?

Support for hardware acceleration is probably a bigger deal, at least on mobile devices, than whatever performance differences otherwise remain.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Interesting)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217148)

What about Linux? Flash on Linux sucks and this is entirely Adobe's fault.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Informative)

takowl (905807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217328)

People always say this. But I can easily watch Flash video in full screen on Linux, and I often do. Just testing a (non-fullscreen) video now, it took up some 35% of one core (Pentium 5300: not exactly top of the range). I don't have a problem with it.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

takowl (905807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217370)

For comparison, an HTML5 test video at the same resolution in WebM (Firefox 4) took over half of a core.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217440)

The question I have is can existing hardware that supports h.264 acceleration do the same for WebM VP8 video, and if not, can that functionality be added fairly easily to future devices?

if you read the second FA, it has some information on hardware acceleration and the efforts to optimize and improve VP8 in general. From the fact that few existing hardware accelerated options were mentioned I assume that means it takes a different type of hardware acceleration than for H.264 which is more widespread than that.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1, Funny)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215346)

There is no phone but iPhone and no god but Jobs! The luminous one has decreed no Flash and so there is no Flash on the one true mobile phone.

Mod Parent Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217254)

Mod parent to funny. Just because the mod who modded this troll can't take a joke doesn't mean everybody else can't

Re:Mod Parent Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217302)

That doesn't make it funny.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215350)

It hardly makes sense to attack Google for using this new system because the old system is popular on phones. Google is *owning* phones right now, and is on target to be behind the leading OS in the next year or so. (They're also going to be pushing their new Chromium OS pretty hard soon, so they'll have an interest there too). And Chrome isn't doing too badly at the mo either.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216120)

Apparently you don't understand that there are/were already 10x as many iPhones on the market before Android started to take off, but also that iPhones sold more units than Android last quarter. So I wouldn't say google is *owning*. They are far far behind, and they are falling even further behind. That said, #2 in smart phones is still a nice place to be.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (3, Informative)

Boycott BMG (1147385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216906)

Apparently you don't understand that there are/were already 10x as many iPhones on the market before Android started to take off, but also that iPhones sold more units than Android last quarter. So I wouldn't say google is *owning*. They are far far behind, and they are falling even further behind. That said, #2 in smart phones is still a nice place to be.

Android was outselling iPhone worldwide last quarter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8125725/Google-Android-becomes-second-most-popular-smartphone-operating-system.html [telegraph.co.uk] From the article:

Google's Android operating system now has a market share of 25.5 per cent worldwide, up from 3.5 per cent in the same period a year ago, according to the latest figures from Gartner. That means the smartphone platform is now second only to Symbian, which enjoys a 36.6 per cent share, down from 44.6 per cent over the same period the previous year. It puts Google Android well ahead of rival Apple, which has a 16.7 per cent share, and Research in Motion, with a 14.8 per cent share.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217108)

Your statistics imply that Apple is losing on some metric, and they are therefore invalid. Any facts contradicting the ultimate supremacy of Apple in all things are obviously and unquestionably flawed... the deranged lies of pathetic astroturfers.

Now if you would be so kind as to report to the nearest Apple Store and Re-Education Center, such unworthy ideas can be swiftly removed.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217226)

Yes, 2nd isn't bad, but they'll overtake RIM soon I'm sure. Currently Apple are nowhere in terms of sales this (last etc) month. Yeah, there are more iPhones out there at the mo, but that's going away soon. Apple can't hope to compete in the medium-long term against the tens of companies releasing Android phones/tablets.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215502)

Some Nokia phones do also, like the N900.

The only reason the iPhone can't is not technical, it's because Apple controls what software you can run very tightly.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215670)

It's very much technical; Adobe hasn't even made an alpha for flash-iphone that works without increasing battery usage tenfold :p

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217554)

you'd never see it on the app store, so how can you know it's 10x power use?

the Lord Steve Jobs said, did he?

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216198)

I had to remove flash from my android 2.2

It broke more sits than it fixed (it would stay on top, blocking things I wanted to see ). Additionally, the only thong it reliably ran were the ads.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217604)

What a generalized statement derived from ignorance. This was marked insightful?

H.264 does work great under Flash -- it has for over 3 years now -- given the following. The developer isn't clueless and someone that thinks programing is drag and dropping components and timeline scripting. The video has to be encoded/sized properly, so that it supports GPU decoding and that its bit-rate also matches the target audience -- which is actually quite easy using Adobe's media encoder. And no, the same videos that works great on a desktop will not necessarily work the same on a mobile device. This is just as true for Android as it is for iOS, where as mobile devices need a video encoded at a different(lower) bit-rate in order to achieve smooth playback. In iOS's case, videos that aren't encoded properly don't play at all.

There's way more to this, which you'll only understand if you have real experience working with this stuff -- which I do.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Interesting)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34218392)

flash with H.264 has not been working great.

Rubbish. Flash with H.264 is fucking fantastic. That's because H.264 is fantastic. Flash is just a set players (just like VLC or QuickTime), which can suck or not depending on the specific player, just like with any media player.

It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer

How so? The only way it seems to be "hell to work with" is if you let ideology get in the way.

and it don't work on mobile phones.

The Flash H.264 players don't work on most phones (and the ones it does work on, tends to not work very well), but that's why they come with their own players. H.264 on iOS is the most seamless, easy-to-use, high-quality combo of media format and player out there.

But your post begs one ENORMOUS question: what format is better than H.264? WebM? WebM is poorer quality and far less widely supported.

As a technical curiosity, WebM is interesting, but as a consumer media format it's rather pathetic. Geek tribalism and anti-patent sentiment may get you modded Insightful, but that doesn't change the reality that H.264 mops the floor with WebM (and Theora). Good luck trying to convince consumers that they should choose an inferior solution for theoretical, hypothetical, and ideological reasons. In fact, anyone who thinks WebM should supplant H.264 ought to ponder their motives. Geeks like to pretend they are above fanboyism and that they objectively choose the best tool for the job, entirely unswayed by emotion or marketing. Yeah, right...

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215110)

yeay put the problem with buddhism is that it's almost hippies only.
webm is patent free and opensource and we can hope that it will supported by the next android version and every browser soon. i don't see a problem here. you just wait.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Informative)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215304)

yeay put the problem with buddhism is that it's almost hippies only.

Hundreds of millions of Asians would like to disagree with that characterization, you ignorant hick.

Lucky for you, they're Buddhists who honor the precept of doing no harm to others, or they'd probably kick your ass.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (2, Interesting)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215356)

There are a lot of Buddhists who seem to have forgotten that, just like a lot of Christians seem to have missed thou shalt not kill (it doesn't say murder in my bible ta very much). But yes the GP should stick to playing the banjo and screwing his relatives.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215508)

just like a lot of Christians seem to have missed thou shalt not kill (it doesn't say murder in my bible ta very much).

So you acknowledge that your version has at least the one mistranslation, and in spite of that, maybe even specifically because of that, are holding it up as "The True Word".

  Your "bible ta" could be interesting though, the new testament ta and the old testament ta make a proper set of ta tas.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (0)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216262)

Not that I really care, but the Bible says neither; it says "lo tirtzach", which means neither kill nor murder. Just because modern English has two specific common words specifying generalness of killing a human doesn't mean all languages are bound to.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215672)

Lucky for you, they're Buddhists who honor the precept of doing no harm to others, or they'd probably kick your ass.

I thought they were the Buddhists that pity those who call them hippies, because it means they are regressing back to lower states of enlightenment, and will probably be reincarnated as a lower animal, plant, or powerless hungry ghost, next cycle.

Meaning... they are hurting themselves more than they hurt the Buddhist.

The education about Buddhism you never asked for! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217066)

Reincarnation as you've described it—that one being lives a cycle of lives along a hierarchy of beings, some better positioned to achieve enlightenment—isn't necessarily Buddhist (though it may be found among some Buddhists, as that conception is found in Hinduism, from which Buddhism originally derived). The Buddhist concept of rebirth (which varies between traditions, and even between individuals) is a bit more subtle, suggesting that when a given consciousness passes from life to death, it will become part of a broader set of influences which contribute to the beginning of new consciousnesses. Which is to say that in Buddhism, a life which exists now may not be the same as some previously-existing life, and that a consciousness existing now may not remain intact or unaltered as its existence carries on in other forms. In this conception, an ego is a lot like karma (deed or action), in that in a strict sense it goes on existing, but it becomes a part of the broader world and is subject to all of the same influences that affect and disperse the rest of these phenomena.

As far as your last sentence, I think it's a rare Buddhist (and probably one who has come to their belief as a matter of tradition rather than direct interest) who sees their peers harming themselves and isn't moved by compassion to try to help them cease it. Recognizing that self and ego are impermanent, a Bodhisattva takes responsibility to help to bring all other beings along for the ride, so to speak, toward enlightenment.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217284)

The "problem" is the great hammer of the Troll God also known as MPEG-LA and H.264. Have you looked at their patents? There are something like 2000 plus patents tied to H.264, and it would probably be pretty fair to say there isn't ANY way to make a codec that doesn't infringe on a dozen or so. Now add to this the fact that just about every device released in the last 4 years supports hardware H.264 and NOT WebM, and if it can be made to easily support WebM without changing hardware I'm sure that would be argued as evidence on how closely it is to H.264 then things don't look bright for WebM, even though I 100% support having WebM replace H.264 in HTML V5 so EVERYONE will have a hardware accelerated web.

If you think MPEG-LA, which includes such heavyweights as Apple, MSFT, and IIRC IBM, is just gonna sulk in the corner while you snatch marketshare away from them you got another thing coming. I'm sure if WebM gets any real traction outside of Google properties then MPEG-LA will break out their mighty Troll God hammer and lay the lawsuits of doom upon thee. Even if Google manages to win it'll be tied up in a court for a fricking decade or more and by then nobody will care because the patents to MP3 and most of H.264 will have expired and WebM won't be needed.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217586)

google are going to pwn oracle on patents, and could probably pwn the MPEG-LA if it came to that.

MPEG-LA wont touch web-m because they would like to keep their patents... challenging google on them will just lead to free video for everyone and they don't want that at all.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34218614)

If you think MPEG-LA, which includes such heavyweights as Apple, MSFT, and IIRC IBM, is just gonna sulk in the corner while you snatch marketshare away from them you got another thing coming.

What do you think MPEG-LA is? They aren't primarily a profit source for it's members. For them, it's a way to get a legal codec out there for everyone to use. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have patents licensed to MPEG-LA, and in return they get a codec they can license that would otherwise be far too legally impractical (the exact sort of problem both WebM and Theora face, actually).

I'm sure if WebM gets any real traction outside of Google properties then MPEG-LA will break out their mighty Troll God hammer and lay the lawsuits of doom upon thee.

Probably, but that first requires the improbable event of WebM gaining sufficient traction.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (4, Insightful)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215144)

H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.

WebM is free.

It's also a good potential "unifying format" for web video codec-wise the same way Flash has been player-wise because we're still in the same codec hell as far as HTML5 video is concerned due to Mozilla foundation's refusal to use H.264.

H.264 licensing fees [zdnet.com] look reasonable though if products or services are sold at profit. Not sure how it goes though for free software or products that make marginal profits.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1, Insightful)

m50d (797211) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215244)

The standards are almost identical though. Realistically there's no way there are patents out there that cover h264 and not VP8.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215326)

The question is do any go the other way?

My bet is the VP8 folks must have some from older versions that MPEG-LA infringes on.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (4, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216140)

Realistically there's no way there are patents out there that cover h264 and not VP8.

Back in actual, as opposed to perceived, reality On2 has been avoiding patent problems for well over a decade. This was made by a company that did nothing but video codecs, if they didn't know what they were doing in regards to patents, they wouldn't have survived.

Here's a better and less ranty writeup if you want to look into the arguments: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=420 [conecta.it]

Re:WebM versus H.264 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34216382)

It must suck to invent h264 and not be able to make a buck. Especially considering how easy it is to make a buck on the internet if you're willing to spam, lie, cheat, etc. Offer something productive and useful and get a big loud FUCK YOU back from the internet. Good job everybody!

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215424)

The problem with H.264 isn't Mozilla. It's patents. The Mozilla guys are just being cautious (remember Unisys' GIF patent [wikipedia.org] ?)

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215786)

There's no caution involved, Mozilla would have to license the patents. h.264 is only free for streaming, that does not include the encoding or decoding. They just refrain from charging you again to stream the encoded streams.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34216428)

Yeah fuck those guys for inventing a useful technology that animated the internet and continues to provide value across various levels of technology! Fuck them for trying to make any money for that. This is the internet you don't make money here unless you sell porn, fake antivirus software, penis enlargement, spam or scam!

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34218454)

The problem with H.264 isn't Mozilla.

No, it's entirely Mozilla. They could support H.264 with absolutely no problem whatsoever, but they won't because they mistook the reason they are so popular in the first place. Firefox gained market share because it was better than IE, not because it was patent-free (I was going to write "Free Software", but it's actually not. Hence Iceweasel).

H.264 is superior to WebM and Theora. By not supporting the best solution, Mozilla is giving up the very thing that made them great. Isn't one of the ideas behind Open Source is that it tends towards technical superiority? Apparently not.

Routing around government interference (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34218596)

Isn't one of the ideas behind Open Source is that it tends towards technical superiority?

Free software (sometimes called open source software) tends toward technical superiority in the absence of government interference. In its presence, on the other hand, free software routes around it even if the route is suboptimal.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216618)

H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.
WebM is free

It wasn't a deal breaker for Canonical and its OEM partners.

This is big-league ball:

There are about 30 H.264 licensors and 900 licensees. These include global giants in manufacturing:

Fujitsu. JVC. Mitsubishi. NTT. Panasonic. Philips. Samsung. Sony. Toshiba... Theatrical production. Home video. Broadcast, cable and satellite distribution. Mobile. Industrial, security and military video. The list goes on and on and on. The Asian presence is particularly formidable.

I don't know how - much less why - the small hardware maker builds or buys an encoder/decoder that doesn't include H.264 support. The maximum fee is 20 cents a unit - and the first 100,000 units you produce each year are royalty free.

20% of "prime time" Internet traffic is a Netflix stream.

Think about that. 20% of traffic and not a single click for AdSense. Every file a legit subscription download.

That says a lot about the changing face of the Internet.

The Netflix customer only needs a browser to search and select from the online catalog. The player - and the browser - can be built into his HDTV, his video game console, Blu-Ray player or set-top box.

He doesn't need Firefox. He doesn't need FOSS.

If FOSS software is being used in the client, it will be for - all practical purposees - invisible.
   

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216652)

The maximum fee is 20 cents a unit - and the first 100,000 units you produce each year are royalty free.

Yet even big camera makers pass on a proper license with their products...

Re:WebM versus H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217592)

It's also a good potential "unifying format" for web video codec-wise the same way Flash has been player-wise because we're still in the same codec hell as far as HTML5 video is concerned due to Mozilla foundation's refusal to use H.264.

There's not really any codec hell any more. WebM plays in all browsers. It plays in Firefox 4, Opera, and Chrome out of the box. It plays in IE9 and Safari if you install the codec on your system.

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34218522)

H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.

Every single one of those groups can pay. As a web distribution format, H.264 is 100% free if you are non-commercial. If you are commercial, the licensing fees are low enough that you should have no problem recovering the costs. You might as well say something like, "having to pay to run a web site makes it a dealbreaker for ...".

As for hardware, the licensing fees must not be that much because pretty much every single video-playing device out there supports H.264.

WebM is free.

Is claimed to be free. The MPEG-LA seems to think otherwise. But regardless, H.264 is pretty much universally supported and technologically superior to WebM. Supporting WebM simply because it's (claimed to be) free strikes me as a rather odd thing to do. It's like saying, "let's choose the shittier option, because the superior one offends my ideology, even though it does so in a way that is absolutely negligible in terms of actual impact upon my life".

Re:WebM versus H.264 (4, Funny)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215382)

Buddhism has four genders - man, woman, ladyboy and hermafrodites

hermafrodite
noun
a person or animal having both male and female sex organs, plus giant frizzy hair

Re:WebM versus H.264 (1, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215838)

H.264 is the codec, flash is just the wrapper of choice these days. H.264 encoded video should be playable on any machine that can decode it and read the wrapper/container format. What makes H.264 so great is that I can encode the video once and place into whatever container I want and have it read on almost any device these days. It doesn't have to be flash, it could be MOV, M4V, MP4, whatever container. Flash is the current favourite because you can put DRM into the wrapper and make it a bit harder to remove the video from the container. When I create a quicktime movie anymore, I get two files, an .m4v that is the actual video, and the .mov which is a wrapper with a pointer to the movie.

And most video players these days will read a straight m4v encoded file whether it be on mobile phones, windows, mac, linux (provided you have the codec), console, etc..

The problem WebM has right now is that it either has to offer videographers and producers a technical advantage over H.264 and be widely adopted. Currently it's still not AS good bit for bit as H.264 and it's not yet widely adopted. Until those two hurdles are overcome, it's not going to see wide spread adoption.

"Available in WebM" (0)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215108)

Available, but in use? Everything I use still seems to get H.264. Who actually gets the WebM?

Re:"Available in WebM" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215164)

http://www.youtube.com/html5

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215290)

I get h264 content by doing that.

Re:"Available in WebM" (2, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215784)

Does your browser support WebM?

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216912)

Does your browser support WebM?

That's the main problem (I believe) that webm has right now. The most popular browser "brand" (Mozilla Firefox) that will support it easily out of the virtual box has been mired in an ever-slower beta cycle for quite some time now, at least by internet standards, and will take probably another 3-6 months to finally hit release.

If Android "Gingerbread" really does have support for webm when it comes out, that will help. Until then, it seems only the about 5%-8% of the internet running a current Google Chrome/Chromium or the beta of Firefox 4 can actually use webm on the web.

Re:"Available in WebM" (2, Insightful)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215276)

...and most of what you got two years ago was Flash, until Steve started his war on Flash.

Somebody's just trying to get the 'standard' fixed on a codec that you can write players for without paying through the nose for.

Re:"Available in WebM" (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215908)

Adobe started the war with Apple by writing shitty code for Flash on the Mac.

Secondly, there's no point in wrapping H.264 video inside a Flash player when the hardware can play H.264 by itself.

Putting H.264 video inside Flash is as stupid as putting a JPEG inside a Microsoft Word document.

Re:"Available in WebM" (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216022)

Adobe started the war with Apple by writing shitty code for Flash on the Mac.

As opposed to shitty code on Windows. Flash is pretty processor intensive on anything.

Secondly, there's no point in wrapping H.264 video inside a Flash player when the hardware can play H.264 by itself.

DRM. Flash is great for DRM. Don't forget that little 'feature'.

Putting H.264 video inside Flash is as stupid as putting a JPEG inside a Microsoft Word document.

Hasn't stopped anybody I work with yet...

Re:"Available in WebM" (3, Interesting)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216286)

As opposed to shitty code on Windows. Flash is pretty processor intensive on anything.

But it's significantly worse on Mac, and always has been. For Linux it's even worse, there Flash is almost unusable.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34216552)

It seems Adobe fanboys have mod points today. The truth hurts, I guess.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216846)

Looks that way. My post stating a simple fact about Flash on other platforms got rated "troll". I mad no personal attacks and no platform attacks, only noted the comparative performance of Flash on the 3 major platforms.

Re:"Available in WebM" (5, Informative)

Jazzbunny (1251002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215344)

If you have opted in to use Html5 [youtube.com] and website you visit uses iframe to embed YouTube videos [youtube.com] you'll see the video without flashplugin. The codec used depends on the browser you are using: Firefox and Opera will play the WebM version, Safari and IE9 will use h.264. I'm not sure what codec Chrome will prefer, but most likely WebM.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

chudnall (514856) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215566)

Thank you, this sort of informative post is the reason I still read slashdot comments.

Re:"Available in WebM" (3, Informative)

dr.newton (648217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215578)

With Chrome 7.0.517.44 (latest at the time of writing), I get WebM. Looks pretty good at 720p!

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

xonicx (1009245) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216110)

HTML5 youtube does not work as good as flash(at least on my 1Mbps connection). It stops for buffering for so many times whereas flash runs smoothly.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215804)

Chrome won't use h.264, I can pretty much guarantee you that much. No free browser is going to include it unless the party making it free is willing to be on the hook for royalties or they include somebody else's codec for it.

I'd personally be very surprised if Google was willing to pay the licensing fee to use h.264. Remember that h.264 isn't free for use, it's only free to stream the encoded files to somebody who then decodes them. Neither the party encoding nor the party decoding gets to do so for free without infringing upon the MPEG-LA property.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215930)

Safari supports H.264 and yet it's free.

And if it supports H.264 by using the H.264 decoder of the OS, then Firefox can do it too.

This whole H.264 vs WebM mess is only harming the adoption of the HTML5 video tag, not to mention that Flash is currently used for playing... H.264 files.

Re:"Available in WebM" (3, Insightful)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216086)

Safari supports H.264 and yet it's free.

But it isn't FREE!

And Mozilla isn't just about making a browser, its about making the web better.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216714)

And Mozilla isn't just about making a browser, its about making the web better.

Ahh but if it is about strategic decisions to try to change the shape of the Web, maybe they need better strategists... since all they're doing right now is keeping Flash alive.

Re:"Available in WebM" (2, Informative)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216158)

Fail. Chrome already supports h.264.

Copy paste from google owned youtube:
        * Firefox 4 (WebM, Beta available here)
        * Google Chrome (WebM and h.264)
        * Opera 10.6+ (WebM, Available here)
        * Apple Safari (h.264, version 4+)
        * Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 (h.264, Beta available here)
        * Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8 with Google Chrome Frame installed (Get Google Chrome Frame)

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216194)

Double fail even.

Not only can google's chrome browser decode h.264, but google's youtube site already has 100% of all their videos encoded to it as well. So in short, I can guarantee you that many free browswers already include it, and google has already paid the extremely small licensing fee. As has Microsoft and apple. The only significant hold out, Mozilla, and they are holding back progress on the web (as usual lately).

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216244)

Funny that I keep finding videos on YouTube that won't work in HTML5. They display "You need to upgrade your Adobe Flash Player to watch this video". So even if it's true that all the videos are in H.264, YouTube's doing a really bad job at using them.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216784)

From the HTML 5 beta page: "Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)"

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217256)

Then they should put the ads in a separate Flash and let the browser play the video file.

Re:"Available in WebM" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217280)

If the fee is extremely small, why don't you personally pay it, asshole?

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217510)

Sure thing. Oh wait, Microsoft already paid it for anyone running a Windows OS. Too bad, so sad... for you.

Re:"Available in WebM" (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217662)

youtube.com/html5

That's the reason why I allow youtube to store cookies on my machine.

Not 80% of ALL youtube (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215156)

80% of HTML5 Beta videos are served as WebM. Not 80% of all youtube, duh.

Re:Not 80% of ALL youtube (3, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215298)

Wrong, 80% of videos are available as WebM. Most of the html5 beta videos are served as h264, because very few people have WebM support.

I ordered that in a bar once... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215260)

"combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container"
Yeah, I ordered that in a bar once and got really wasted.

I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215286)

Actually, I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome or Chromium. Specifically, if I log in, I always get "An error occurred..." If I clear cache and cookies I can use Youtube. Everything works fine in Firefox, except apparently I just lost sound recently. I haven't checked cables though. It didn't work in chrome either.

Re:I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215296)

Well your problem then, I use chrome on windows and linux and can watch youtube, even the html 5 stuff. Don't hate.

Re:I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215332)

Well your problem then, I use chrome on windows and linux and can watch youtube, even the html 5 stuff. Don't hate.

I forgot to mention that it works fine on Windows 7 but fails on Ubuntu Lucid and Maverick.

Re:I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215458)

I've used it on lucid with chrome so I couldn't tell ya what's wrong.

Re:I can't seem to use Youtube in Chrome (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215462)

Well, whatever is going wrong, it doesn't go wrong in Firefox, where I have even more extensions than I had in Chrome.

They don't make it easy to find though (1)

onceuponatime (821046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215360)

Why can't I have a button called WebM that I press and all my videos are in webm mode only on youtube. I even tried putting &webm=1 on the search parameters as in the wiki but still just got flash.

Re:They don't make it easy to find though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215384)

Enter the html5 trial: http://youtube.com/html5

Re:They don't make it easy to find though (1)

Pretzalzz (577309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215710)

Ok, I did that. I still get nothing but flash. Firefox 4.0b8 on debian.

Re:They don't make it easy to find though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215896)

Something to do with that "b", I'll wager...

--
DUH!

Re:They don't make it easy to find though (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215938)

Not all videos are available in non-Flash.

I'm in the HTML5 beta myself (for H.264, not WebM) and there's a LOT of videos that aren't available in HTML5.

Re:They don't make it easy to find though (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217682)

youtube.com/html5

I'm mostly interested in quality (2, Insightful)

Athrac (931987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215850)

Have they managed to improve the quality of the VP8 codec? Last time I saw a comparison, VP8 was way behind H.264 [multimedia.cx] .

And don't even give me that crap about "it's free, it doesn't have to be as good" or "it's only a web codec so who cares". If there's a number of big companies supporting the project and they plan on making WebM some kind of industry standard, anything less than state of the art is unacceptable. We'll be using this for years to come, so doing it right is in everyone's best interest.

Re:I'm mostly interested in quality (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216806)

Having an option that everyone can support is doing it right.

Re:I'm mostly interested in quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217050)

I'm amazed at the amount of faith you place in the judgement of a random undergrad who's spent a few years playing around with an open source project as a hobby. Based on the guy's blog posts he seems to think he's an expert on not just video codecs, but also the field of patent law. I know that I get suspicious when I see sweeping claims coming from such an obviously narrow perspective. Personally, I like to see some third-party corroboration and less partisan analysis (which has yet to materialize). But apparently you have no such reservations, and are happy to accept a single, obviously biased perspective as gospel truth.

Re:I'm mostly interested in quality (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217400)

VP8 can improve over time, after adoption. H.264 can't be freed from the claws of MPEG-LA.

Re:I'm mostly interested in quality (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34217552)

Who cares? It's free!

TO: Timothy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34215974)

CC: an anonymous reader

Subject: 80% of Daily YouTube Videos Now In WebM

Body: WTF Does that mean? Is WebM a competing website? Is WebM a DVD Archive? From reading comments it appears to be something related to the way the videos play and may or may not have something to do with HTML5. The first thing that came to my mind was some competing web site that has made 80% of all YouTube videos available as an archive for use when copyright infringement is claimed.

Here is a good link that should have been included for geeks like me who don't know everything: http://www.webmproject.org/ [webmproject.org]

Additionally, how does one make a video available in WebM format? I upload videos occasionally and have never seen the check-box for "use HTML5 with WebM format". Does YouTube decide on it's own how and when to make them available that way?

Re:TO: Timothy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34216058)

geeks like me who don't know everything

Hand in your geek card!

Re:TO: Timothy (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216296)

While I do agree with you because nerds news have lots of specialized fields, the WebM video CODEC has been the subject of at least half a dozen Slashdot articles and the topic itself is more than five months old.

I do agree that the summary should have at least included a link to WebM [wikipedia.org] .

Re:TO: Timothy (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216302)

WebM has been reported on before.
The great thing about the internet is watch engines. Or even the ducking g article enlightens I bet.

I don't need summaries to be longer to define things like webm, whether I know the meaning or not.

Quality (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216780)

How does the sound and image quality of the WebM videos compare to the versions in other formats?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?